Madras High Court
S.Balachandran vs The Principal Secretary on 22 December, 2023
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)No.31016 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.31016 of 2023
and W.M.P(MD).No.26593 of 2023
S.Balachandran .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary,
Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Trichy Division,
Uthamar Koil Complex,
Pichandar Koil, Trichy District.
4.The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner,
A/m. Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple,
Vellithirumutham Village,
Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District. .. Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.31016 of 2023
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order of
the first respondent in G.O(Ms).No.427, Tourism Culture and Religious
Endowments (RE) Department, dated 18.11.2023 and quash the same insofar as
shop No.7 situated at Karthigai Gopura Vasal.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
Mr.M.Saravanan for R4
*****
ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be a lessee was permitted to have a shop inside
Arulmigu Renganathar Swamy Temple situated in Velithirumuthyam Village,
Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District and was provided space in between the
pillars for having the shop and was selling pooja and other articles which were
required for the devotees. The petitioner claims that he is running the stall for more
than six decades and has been paying the rent regularly and there is no default in
payment of the rent and the rent has also been periodically revised. While so, in the
year 2014, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises on account of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proposed Kumbabishekam to be conducted. The third respondent has initiated
proceedings to evict the petitioner from the premises on the ground that the shop
inside the Temple was situated between pillars and was marring the artistic
appearance of the Temple. In this regard, the third respondent has issued notice to
the petitioner, however, the petitioner /stall owner did not vacate the shop and
thereafter, the third respondent, vide proceedings dated 27.02.2019, has directed
the petitioner to vacate the shop, as against which, the petitioner has preferred
appeal before the second respondent under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the second respondent
rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner confirming the order of the third
respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed revision before the
Government under Section 114 of the said Act, 1959 and the same was also
dismissed vide impugned Government Order, against which, this Writ Petition has
been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is running the stall for more than 5 to 6 decades and has been paying the
rent regularly. He further submits that the proceedings were initiated in the year
2014 to evict the petitioner from the stall at the time of conducting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kumbabhishekam for the said Temple. There was no renovation in the place where
the petitioner is having the stall and Kumbabhishekam was also over. Therefore,
the respondents are not justified in continuing the proceedings against the
petitioner which were initiated in the year 2014. The respondents have proceeded
with the action only based on the photographs produced by the Temple
Administration that in some shops, temporary extensions were made which are
marring the artistic appearance of the Temple. Based on the temporary extensions
made by few lessees, the respondents are not justified in initiating action as against
the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.Kumar vs. Commissioner and
others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 244 and submits that the Department ought to
have considered the case of the shop owners individually and in accordance with
law. However, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner
individually and action has been taken against all the stall owners for the mischief
played by some of the lessees. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“ 11. In our considered opinion, the issue raised in these appeals
is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short “the Act, 1959). Chapter
VII of the Act, 1959 deals with the cases of encroachment on the land
belonging to religious institutions. This chapter consists of Sections 77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to 85.
12. Section 77 of the Act, 1959, deals with transfer of lands
appurtenant to or adjoining religious institutions prohibited except in
special cases. Section 78 deals with encroachment by persons on land or
building belonging to charitable or religious institutions or endowments
and the eviction of encroachers. Section 79 deals with mode of eviction
on failure of removal of the encroachment as directed by the Joint
Commissioner. Section 79A deals with encroachment by groups of
persons on land belonging to charitable religious institutions and their
eviction. Section 79B deals with penalty for offences in connection with
encroachment. Section 79C deals with recovery of moneys due to
religious institution, as arrears of land revenue.
13. Section 80 deals with eviction of lessees, licensees or
mortgagees with possession in certain cases. Section 81 provides for an
appeal against Joint Commissioner or the orders of Deputy
Commissioner passed under Section 80. Section 82 provides for payment
of Compensation. Section 83 deals with constitution of the Tribunal.
Section 84 deals with suits against the award. Section 85 provides for
protection of action taken under Chapter VII of the Act, 1959.
14. As mentioned above, the controversy, which is the subject
matter of these appeals, is governed by the provisions of the Act, 1959. It
is not in dispute that the respondents did not resort to the remedies
provided to them under the Act against any of the appellants. In other
words, it is not in dispute that the action taken by the respondents, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was impugned by the appellants in the writ petitions before the High
Court, was not taken under the Act, 1959.
15. It is for this reason, we are inclined to allow these appeals, set
aside the impugned order and grant liberty to the respondents to take
recourse to the remedies provided to them against the appellants
individually in relation to the controversy raised by them in these
proceedings.
16. Needless to say, we have not gone into the merits of the claim
raised by the appellants whether individually or/and severally. The
respondents will, therefore, be at liberty to proceed in the matter in
question against the appellants individually strictly in accordance with
law uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court.”
3. Without any specific allegation against the petitioner as to the manner in
which he has marred the artistic appearance of the Temple, the respondents are not
justified in passing the order under Section 80 of the said Act. It is the only
avocation of the petitioner to run his family and the same is taken away by way of
the impugned Government Order which would affect his fundamental rights
provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Section 80
of the said Act enables the Joint Commissioner to initiate action to evict the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
lessees, if they are marring the atmosphere and the artistic appearance of the
Religious Institution by way of putting the stalls. Though the petitioner claims that
he was permitted to have the stall for several decades, the petitioner has not been
recognised by the Temple Administration by issuing license or lease permitting
him to conduct the shop. Since the petitioner was in occupation, the rent was
collected from him and he has extended the shops by putting some temporary
extensions and thereby, the atmosphere and artistic appearance of the Temple are
marring. When Kumbabhishekam was performed in the Temple in the year 2014,
the Joint Commissioner has requested the petitioner to vacate the premises for the
purpose of renovation, however, he refused to do the same and therefore, notice
was issued to him.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the
petitioner is not entitled to conduct the stall, when the Temple administration has
not recognised him with any license or lease and the temporary structure made by
the petitioner is affecting the artistic appearance of the Temple and Sannathi is
also not visible due to the stall put up by the petitioner. He further submits that
after the incident which took place at Arulmighu Meenakshi Amman Temple,
a policy decision has been taken by the Temple Administration that there cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any shops inside the Temple. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the stall
put up by the petitioner is without any authority and it affects the atmosphere and
artistic appearance of the Temple.
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by both sides and
perused the materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is having the stall inside the Temple premises.
The petitioner claims that he is in possession of the shop for more than five
decades and now, the respondents are directing him to vacate the premises that the
shop put up by him is affecting the atmosphere and artistic appearance of the
Religious Institution. Therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner in the year
2014 itself under Section 80(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act. After several rounds of litigation, the Government has passed
the impugned order confirming the order of the Commissioner. Section 80(2) of
the said Act is extracted hereunder:-
“(2) 1[The Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as
the case may be], if satisfied that the artistic appearance or the
religious atmosphere of the religious institution has been marred or is
likely to be marred by the action of the lessee, licensee or mortgagee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with possession shall cause to be served on the lessee, licensee or
mortgagee concerned, a notice calling upon him to show cause before a
certain date why an order terminating the lease license or cancelling
the mortgagee, and requiring the lessee, licensee or mortgagee, as the
case may be, to deliver possession of the property which is the subject
of the lease, licence or mortgage to the trustee before a date specified in
the notice should not be made. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to
the trustee of the religious institution concerned.”
8. As per Section 80(2) of the said Act, it is the duty of the Joint
Commissioner to preserve the artistic appearance or the atmosphere of the
Religious Institution. However, before taking any action under Section 80(2) of the
said Act, the concerned Officer has to issue a show cause notice. In this case,
notice under Section 80(2) of the said Act was issued in the year 2014. Admittedly,
the shop is within the Temple complex and is situated in between the pillars.
9. Arulmigu Renganathar Swamy Temple is an ancient Temple which has to
be preserved by the Temple Authority. The Temple is not a commercial complex
where commercial activities can be permitted. The atmosphere which is required
for any Religious Institution is to be neat, clean and peaceful environment. It is not
known on what circumstances this petitioner was allowed to occupy the Temple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
premises and was permitted to have the shop inside the Temple. From the available
materials on record, it appears that the shop is used for selling the goods other than
the pooja articles. The Department has claimed that Sanathai is not visible due to
the shop put up by the petitioner and the articles hanging in front of the shop.
Sanathi is said to have been constructed during the period 1623 to 1659 AD.
As per Archeological inspiration, during the period of Thirumalai Nayakar,
Rengavilas Mandapam has totally 200 numbers of pillars and some of the shops
are occupying 14 numbers of pillars. Five shops are near Nathamuni Sanathi and
other shops are in the entrance of Nathamuni Sanathi, which was constructed
during 14th Century. It is the duty of the Department to preserve the artistic
appearance as well as the Religious Atmosphere. Section 80(2) of the said Act
mandates the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may
be, to take appropriate action to preserve the religious atmosphere and the artistic
appearance. Therefore, the respondents cannot be found fault with for initiating
action under Section 80(2) of the said Act on the petitioner who is having the shop
inside the Temple. The notice as mandated under Section 80(2) of the said Act was
duly issued and the proceedings reached its finality by the Government. The
Government has also considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in support of
his revision petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Though the petitioner claims that he is a lessee of the Temple, he has not
produced any document to substantiate his case that he was permitted by the
Temple Administration with lease to have the shop inside the Temple. In the
absence of any document, the petitioner cannot claim occupation of the Temple
premises as a matter of right. Since the petitioner has been permitted by the
Department to occupy, it would not create any right on the petitioner to occupy the
shop perpetually. The receipts for collection of rent by itself cannot create an
agreement between the petitioner and the Department. Mere acceptance of the rent
would not automatically tantamount to renewal of the lease. It is not known as to
whether the petitioner was permitted to put up the shop and whether he has been
permitted to occupy the shop inside the Temple. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim any right, as a matter of right, to continue to occupy the Temple premises.
11. The religious atmosphere is a basic requirement and paramount in any
Religious Institution. The Temple must have an environment reflecting the culture
and tradition of the temple. It is the duty of the Department to preserve the culture
and atmosphere of the Religious Institution. However, the Department is
concentrating only in revenue from the Temple properties instead of preserving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
them. Permitting such shops inside Meenakshi Amman Temple has taught a very
big lesson to the Department in the year 2018. Even after several years, though
Meenakshi Amman Temple is having sufficient funds, the Department is not in a
position to restore the damaged Mandapam to its original position. Therefore, at
any point, the shops inside the Temple can never be permitted. It is the
responsibility of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to
ensure the religious atmosphere in every Temple. The Department has to take a
decision not to permit any shops inside the Temple.
12. In this case, since the petitioner has not made out any case, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Government. However, the
petitioner claims that he was permitted to have the shop inside the Temple by the
Authorities for more than five decades and based on the same, he is eking his
livelihood. Therefore, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner
sympathetically and find out any alternative place in any of the Temple lands to
have the shop. The petitioner shall also be permitted to have the shop inside the
Temple for a period of three months to enable him to find an alternative place.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.12.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ssb
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Trichy Division,
Uthamar Koil Complex,
Pichandar Koil, Trichy District.
4.The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner,
A/m. Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple,
Vellithirumutham Village,
Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
